CheezWizHed

All I can think of when reading these posts is, "Your Nobody called today... She hung up when I asked her name. Well, I wonder if she thinks she's being clever? Oooo Oooo" This earworm provided to you today by Sylvia

They have five RBs under contract - Jones, Dillon, Dexter Williams, Patrick Taylor, Mike Weber. I listed a QB as a UDFA. Edit: after finding a scouting report on Chris Ferguson, QB, Liberty, I added him as a UDFA in addition to Rogan Wells. If Taylor can get healthy I think he has as much upside as any RB they can draft on day 3. In his final 32 games at Memphis he scored 37 TDs. Williams and Weber were 6th/7th round picks, so I don't think anyone that late in the draft will be significantly better. I'd be surprised if Dexter Williams goes anywhere this year. Seems like he has talent, but can't put it together. They currently have two RBs, but they generally run with 4 (or 3+ a FB) on the roster and a couple on the PS. Even if Taylor looks good, they'll need more. I must've skipped over the QB on the roster on first glance. Nice job overall though - as always. If you keep 2 on the roster, you always have one on the PS, and adding a vet would be very uncharacteristic of the team at this point. So I guarantee they will add one QB two weeks from now - draft or UDFA (more likely).

Didn't Bednar get warmed up enough? Warming up by throwing to 1st base?

McKinney is faster than he looks. He has been a pleasant surprise this year.

It is interesting that you only listed one true RB (UDFA) and no QBs. I'll guarantee that they'll pick up a QB - probably an UDFA. It wouldn't surprise me to see a late-round RB (maybe including a hybrid player like Weddington) or a couple of UDFAs for depth. But at the top, I'd be happy with a Cosmi, McNeil, and St. Juste draft.

Technically, that has been one of Freddie's major weaknesses. This year he is giving up over 6BB/9IP. Historically over 4. Just this year, he has been effectively wild.

Divine Deablo would be great on the team. Not only to replace Raven Greene, but just a #1 name.

Heh, heh... that should be wonderful in the Cub's clubhouse.

Seems like supply and demand at the moment are pretty close. People that want a vaccine are getting them, so there certainly shouldn't be pressure to be fast (though J&J is going to be losing $$). Slightly different topic... My work started the policy that someone that has recovered from COVID or had the COVID vaccine (plus 2 weeks for effectivity) no longer needs to quarantine if they have been exposed to someone with COVID (unless they show symptoms). I'm wondering how a policy like that might be used in the MLB? If I heard right, Milwaukee was fully vaccinated.

[sarcasm]You aren't Brad's dad are you?[/sarcasm] I've not watched a ton of WIBB since Bo left, so I don't have much of an opinion of Brad myself. But I did see a few games this year - some he was pretty "normal" and some he was kind of "whiny" especially one game where he was warned on flopping. I don't have a big issue with him personally and don't have an issue with him returning. But he certainly has the reputation.

Here's hoping his dad did NOT teach him to hit... or run. Hopefully, they just played catch.

Oh, I knew they'd get their cut as an investment. I was just wondering if they taxed it differently or more heavily than the standard short-term (<1 year) and long-term tax rates. Along those lines, do these currencies have any interest or dividends? Or is it just the value of the holding only?

I remember back in 2019, we were excited to have Woodruff, Burnes, and Peralta in the lineup, but only Woody was able to stick. Now the trio certainly look like they will stick around. Houser's results still seem a bit better than he is pitching, but if he can hold around a 4.0-4.5 ERA, that would make quite a quartet of pitchers for our starting rotation.

He was pretty dominant in '04. The fastball was straight, but he could put it wherever he wanted when he was right. And then that big 12-6...he was pretty filthy. That was his only truly dominant season, but he was generally pretty underrated in my opinion. The perception that he didn't put in the work and was always injured didn't help. Yeah, I thought about his one season when I was writing that. But he had a lot of good and meh seasons too. By dominant, I was thinking someone sustaining for a while. FYI, in 1987 (i.e. Team Streak), Higuera had a team record 32 consecutive scoreless innings. Edit - I went to compare the two. Sheets did have a better tail than I remembered (4 years of sub-4.00 ERA after his one dominant year. Higuera was handicapped by starting much older (27 for his MLB debut). Higuera did have 2 very dominant years (sub 3 ERA) with another 3 very good years (sub 4.00). So the two are pretty close overall.

I was helping my son do his taxes last night (his first time) and I noticed that TurboTax had a special question specifically asking if he invested in BitCoin (which he hadn't). Beyond normal investment rules, does anyone know if there is something unique about Bitcoin and taxes?

The NCAA created a rule about flopping (falling down while trying to draw a charge) because of him. He was also accused of punching a guy in the groin while fighting through a screen. There are other incidents where he seems like a bit of jerk.

It is perfectly acceptable to ask questions about decisions made by scientists or "the experts." The pause could have real-world negative consequences; it is also OK to discuss them. Agreed on both points. I was just saying that the general public should avoid jumping to the conclusion that it was either safe or dangerous.

...it feels a little like a shot to the groin. Had to be said.

Brewers are now in 1st place in the NL Central, 4th in the NL overall... Nice start and looking up.

Sheets had a great CB, but his FB was pretty straight. Very good when he had both working, but never truly dominant. I would say, Higuera.

Got to listen to parts of the game between work meetings. Nice clean win by the team. My only wish was that Burnes would've given a big bat flip after his single and kissed his necklace on the way to first base.

True. But how often are vaccines given emergency approval for use? If we compare this to a normal vaccine roll-out, we would still be in the clinical trial phase, right? I think that's perfectly fair. But my post was in direct response to someone that was seemingly implying that the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID due to this issue, but when again, clotting instances statistically here are less than other far more common situations for women in this age group and no details are known about medical history beyond age and gender. But technically it could be. The truth is that we (general public) don't know if it is safe or not. Based on what I've heard, I don't think it should be a concern, but I'm glad the experts decided to pause it and look deeper.

So I click on the thread link about SS position and see this post first... Yes, the rest of the post was about him at 1B, but when you are thinking SS and see that statement it was worth a good laugh. Not sure I see the humor. Bring Braun out of retirement and you have a LOT of power out of the left side of that IF... And hope our opponents have all LHB!

By "we", I'm assuming you mean the FDA and vaccine manufacturers and not BF.net. I can see the headlines now "BF.net online forum openly questions the safety of J&J vaccine!" I guess I was referring more to the general populace, and by extension, BF.net posters. We need to be careful in general that the narrative doesn't become 'the vaccine is dangerous' when these instances of clotting, statistically at least, are less prevalent than than women taking birth control, women following pregnancy, etc. I'd say it isn't wise for the general populace to say it is neither "safe" nor "dangerous" as it would generally be speaking out of ignorance. Knowing that this process (pausing the roll-out to examine the evidence) is normal is helpful and builds confidence, however.

By "we", I'm assuming you mean the FDA and vaccine manufacturers and not BF.net. I can see the headlines now "BF.net online forum openly questions the safety of J&J vaccine!" But seriously, I think pausing to examine the evidence (especially while under emergency approval use) is the best course of actions. You will always have the two extremes of people ("it will turn us into zombies" and "Just take it. Its safe!") that no action will sway their opinion. For the rest of us, there are four possible action/outcome combinations: - Don't pause it, No Issue - People will question why they aren't looking at it (even if they are) and trust will go down. - Don't pause it, Find Issue - Obviously the worst outcome - Trust in future medicines goes way down. [sarcasm]Plus, we end up with the largest populations of zombies![/sarcasm] - Pause it, No Issue, report it, restart it - People might still be skeptical, but at least it is visible that the FDA and J&J took action. This action should build trust in most people. - Pause it, Find Issue - Well, obviously why you pause it in the first place. Maybe a very minimal chance, but better safe than sorry. Public trust might be impacted, but at least they can show that the system works. Pausing it now is really the best way to build trust in the consuming population. And it isn't just "vaccines are dangerous". Remember there are the general anti-vax, there are people cautious about new technology or medicines, there are people cautious about being experimented on (i.e. historical wounds)... There are a variety of good and bad reasons why people are cautious about the vaccine.